The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.06 May 7 applicant response letterSkylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 May 7, 2014 Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Understanding of and Response to Administrative Use Review Comments for Skylark School, Mountain View Church Property, GAPA 7770. Dear Kathy, Tamra, Fred and Commissioners, This is to present our understanding of the conditions presented via County internal and external review for our application noted above. As the documentation indicates, our desired use is to utilize the existing Mountain View Church facility as a private school, Monday through Thursday during normal school hours, or 8 AM to 4 PM. The facility was expanded in 1999‐2000 with sprinkler system and parking and the facility is functionally ready for our desired school use. We also understand all requested information for review was received and understood, appropriate public noticing was complete and some public comment has been received. We began our application in August 2013 with an understanding that this was an “Administrative Review”. While staff has been gracious and responsive, the review has swelled into something much greater than we anticipated as it has grown into many site use issues that seem to be only peripherally pertinent to our application. Our rationale for this is simply enough, our Sunday morning use of the site is nearly the same as our desired Monday‐Thursday use. The differences truly are a matter of code, not of function. None‐the‐less, we are here and, with the following conditions, if we understand them correctly, encompass our proposal for use and compliance with County code. The following “bullet” items are from various review comments with our tabbed responses. SITE COMPLIANCE 2013 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code 4‐203‐C Vicinity Map – Complete 4‐203‐D Site Plan – By Peak Surveying 2/6/14 • 7. ‐ Utilities shown. No easement dims or users No known easements for the utilities. Have been there as long as we remember. Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 • 11. – Photos provided. No elevation views at scale of existing structures. Elevation views at scale were not requested by County staff, just photos. We do have older architecturals that we can provide if desired. • 12. – Sewer force main shown. Need size and engineering statement that design, function and condition of existing pump station and force main are suitable for proposed use. • 13. – One 4”w service shown (fire and domestic). Need engineering statement that design, function and condition of existing service is suitable for proposed use. 4‐203‐E Grading and Drainage Plan ‐ Peak Surveying 2/6/14 Site Plan Report by Rick Barth, P.E. 2/7/14 Size is easily sufficient for daily use. Church service use, which before and after services are high impact times, would greatly exceed school uses which will be more intermittent and distributed through the day. • Report and plan generally adequate. Agree with reps and conclusion. • Paved area icing must be dealt with by maintenance The Church uses a snow plow service which Skylark will contribute to for weekday plowing as well. • Need simple engineering statement that existing offsite and onsite drainage is adequate and poses no safety concerns for proposed use. Offsite drainage is minimal as uphill runoff is blocked by Highway 82 and CR 154 and what does pass through is well contained in the perimeter drainage, namely the irrigation overflow on the south side and a small swale on the north. Both are well vegetated for erosion control and BMP as they have been in place for 30+ years. No changes are anticipated as we do not desire to disturb the healthy vegetation. • Previous paving of lot as a Code violation should be evaluated separately with owner at time of paving (several years ago at least). Applies only to this app as condition that must be resolve prior to approval. My opinion is that paved is less of a water quality concern to Roaring Fork than potential sediment from vehicles tracking on dirt/gravel. Increase in peak flow not a concern. County should not pursue. We understand the parking is deemed to have been done without a specific permit. However, it is our understanding from the 1999‐2000 documentation that an asphalt parking lot was part of the site review. It was done later simply due to costs, but we did not perceive that we were in violation of our site improvements as indicated on the plans from 1999. • Suggested approval condition is that vegetative buffer must be maintained (as proposed by applicant) Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 We have every intention of staying away from the vegetative buffer for aesthetic, ecological, and cost reasons. We entered this project not anticipated doing site improvements. 4‐203‐ F Landscape Plan • Site plan shows existing. Proposed waived. 4‐ 203‐ G Impact Analysis • Submittal docs adequately address eng concerns. Some related comments contained elsewhere in this review memo. We understand Glenwood has presented three main concerns. First, CR 154 intersection (addressed later in this letter). Secondly, a pre‐annexation agreement. We simply request some time to make sure a pre‐annexation agreement has not already been completed when MV signed on with the Kurt Wigger utility extension. If one does not exist, we do understand and agree to work that out with Glenwood. Thirdly, additional utility fees for water and sewer. We do understand and have sent in our anticipated head count to Robin Millyard, Public Works Director of Glenwood and have not yet heard what those costs will be and can provide estimated water and sewer uses as well (see below). We do understand their necessity and, only pending the scale of the fees, may request payments instead of lump sum but we are not opposed to the additional fees. 4‐203‐L Traffic Study ****Refer to separate memo by Lee Barger**** Addressed below. 4‐203‐M Water Supply and Distribution Plan • Need “Will‐Serve” letter from Glenwood Springs Will acquire. See above note with Robin Millyard. • Fire District requires test of Sprinkler system. Alarm and other per 2/26/14 memo We have been in coordination with Glenwood Fire and Mr. Ron Biggers who has been of great help. We recently had our system tested by Fire Sprinkler Systems, Inc., of Glenwood and anticipate some recommendations this summer. Thus far, recommendations include strobe flasher upgrades on some of the wall alarms. We also will (the church was already working on) security and evacuation plans which we hope to have finalized by the end of December and provided to local emergency services along with staff training plans. Costs for security upgrades are not yet known but are something the church and Skylark are prepared to bear. Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 • Need engineering statement that design, function and condition of existing service is suitable for proposed use. The system should see a lower peak demand through the day as use will be distributed. Only basic bathroom use is anticipated. No cooking will occur for the school. With this we submit the following typical use per person, regardless of age. 3 restrooms visits – 1.6 gpf and 0.2 gal per handwashing = 1.8 gal per visit = 5.4 gpcpd Drinking water – 0.5 gal per person (many will bring from home) 5.9 gpcpd x 120 persons = 708 gpd at maximum build out. We do not anticipate reaching that level for at least 5 years, if ever. Church staff varies from 1 – 4 persons per day at the same time and would have similar uses already accounted for in their current demand. Janitorial cleaning happens already and uses minimal water. 4‐203‐N Wastewater Treatment Plan • Need info about existing lift station, existing flows vs proposed, capacity, force main size, condition, and maintenance contract? 708 gpd x 90% return (assumed) = 637 gpd additional wastewater flow, 4 days per week during school semesters. 34 weeks x 4 days x 637 gpd = 86,600 gpy. The existing system is a Goulds 2” grinder pump installed two years ago and appears to function satisfactorily. We do not have a specific maintenance plan as the church has plumbers “in house” that keep a watch on the system. We will provide whatever Mr. Burns requires. As an estimate for Sunday peak: 2 restroom visits per patron x 1.8 gpv x 325 avg congregates (two separate services) = 1,170 gpd on Sunday. • Existing Site App for Lift Station? Can determine if one exists. We are not aware of an application. The lift station was done several years ago when the site tied into Glenwood Sewer. We would not know why it wouldn’t have been done at that time. We can provide the pump specifications and application to Mr. Buddy Burns. • Does proposed use trigger new CDPHE review? The effluent is the same as typical domestic uses, just as on Sunday. We are under 2,000 gpd. The City of Glenwood Springs does not require further documentation. We do not foresee a requirement for a separate CDPHE review. Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 • SGM can investigate further after applicant response. • Need engineering statement that design, function and condition of existing pump station and force main are suitable for proposed use. The use with the lift station is adequate as school demand will be lower and more distributed as opposed to the Sunday morning timeframe. See calculation above. The tie in to City system was done under City observation. I have contacted Mr. Burns but have not received a response yet. • Need “Will‐Serve” letter. Will acquire and have presented those requests to the Glenwood Public Works Departments. We have been on City water and sewer for several years now so we anticipate this to catch up the documentation with the permissions. Likewise we shall receive will‐serves from SourceGas and Xcel and provide the County copies. Article 7 Standards • I reviewed this application w/ respect to Article 7 in its entirety and did not have any comments in addition to those expressed above and in Lee Barger’s memo on access and traffic. Miscellaneous Comments • Applicant to verify suitability of electric Again, our use should be less than a Sunday use as we will have fewer rooms with lights on. Xcel is providing a will serve letter from Mr. Tillmon McSchooler. There has been comment about the northerly (remaining) driveway. Initially we understood it will remain as is in previous discussion with Road and Bridge staff as it was “satisfactory”. Physically, it cannot be straightened into the site as grades are too steep. Most driveways along 154 are either too steep, or at a skewed angle. We have the latter. The width at CR 154 is 34 feet. Other than the skew, which we do not see another way around, we do not believe we are out of compliance on that driveway. We therefore request that driveway be approved “as is”. TRAFFIC/CR 154/HWY 82 We certainly know of the difficulties surrounding the CR 154 intersection. Having been at this site for better than 30 years, Mountain View has seen traffic on 82 come and go to great degrees. It is acknowledged that improvements to this intersection are likely. We also have been a witness to the many difficulties of the planning of South Bridge, and that the 154 intersection was, and may still be a possible connection point. Hence, little significant improvement has been done for 20+ years in Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 anticipation of a major traffic change due to South Bridge. Perhaps were South Bridge in, this would not be an issue. With that in mind, we do contend that such improvements should not be placed on Mountain View Church. In fact, if they are, our application is done. Those improvements are expenses that are just not possible for our church or Skylark to bear. We can, however, contribute in three main ways. First, it was noted by Mike Prehm, Foreman with Road and Bridge, as well as Mr. Dan Roussin of CDOT and Mr. Andrew MacGregor of Glenwood Springs (in the Buffalo Valley application) and Mr. Lee Barger of SGM, that our southern driveway may need to be closed and a right‐of‐way dedication provided in anticipation of a CR 154 reconfiguration. Such diagrams have been presented with adjacent applications in the recent past (page 6 of staff comments for the Buffalo Valley application). We have no qualms with such actions and, if that diagram or something similar is what is anticipated, we are agreeable. Closing our driveway makes the space between our north drive and the existing Buffalo Valley entrance 420 feet, greatly increasing vehicle storage, and better than 500 feet to the 82 intersection. We agree to close the driveway at the County’s discretion (with one potential County caveat below), and can dedicate ROW up to 5 feet from our parking for future CR 154 reconfiguration, driveway access to Buffalo Valley, or school bus stop. The caveat noted above involves the third element, a more defined footpath to the RFTA trail that connects to this south driveway, therefore that driveway would be dedicated to foot traffic only. With this, too, we can commit our coordination with County Road and Bridge to get that accomplished as it appears a straight pedestrian connection across from this southern driveway is quite feasible. With this we submit that Mountain View and Skylark can demonstrate and provide safe and adequate access for our site for this intended use. The existing driveway has functioned well for 30+ years (gravel before 2000) and the pedestrian‐trail access would be a nice improvement. Internally, the site has ample parking and space for vehicular maneuverability. CLOSING COMMENTS Our final request is for leniency in the timeframe. We agree to the noted conditions above, but would request that a schedule be made so that only the absolute elements be complete prior to August 2014, and that we be granted an extension to the end of October 2015 to fulfill all other obligations. In our defense, had we known how many elements we would have had to encounter earlier, perhaps we could have begun earlier. We have many families excited about this educational opportunity. As you know, a private school is no easy thing to pull off. It most certainly will not be a money making operation and will rely heavily on contributions from our wonderful supporters. Yet, the Glenwood area and Garfield County will have an opportunity to use an existing, “infill” facility that is well suited for education with a school that is Skylark School Mountain View Church, Property Owner County Use Review Application, 12/13 internationally recognized with 9 schools domestically, one in Europe and two in South Africa. We would be the second in Colorado. Our recommended schedule would be: Confirm utilities/impact fees/pre‐annex – July 2014 Security Plans Provided – December 2014 Construct trail connection – April 2015 Fire system upgrades – May 2015 Make quarterly payments for impact fees/water/sewer upon final calculations with GWS. Thank you for your consideration of our application. Please do let us know if we have missed any conditions. It is our understanding and attempt in this letter to show compliance with requirements sufficient for approval that we may open in August 2014, and that we will have at least one year to provide such commitments, be it financial, documentation, or material. Respectfully, Mr. Rick L. Barth Chairman, Skylark School 970‐366‐2806